Poll: Which Alignment do you Usually Roleplay As?

[waldronate]

forces players to play into a specific archetype

I understand that statement describes the entire intent of the alignment system. I can get all of the bickering, infighting, moral ambiguity, and hate that I can tolerate in my day job: I really don't want it to spill over into my leisure activities.

[CcMuffins00]

So I voted for Neutral Good but that's just cause I think a good handful of my characters fall into that category, but in truth I love playing Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil much more than Neutral good. It think these characters just offer so much to the plot and are fun to play. So keep in mind what's gonna be enjoyable. I have characters all across the spectrum because it's needed for plot and diversity, and it's nice to have a character who's the hero or the story, but I love the dynamic of a villain just doing stuff, not for an end game but because he can. Or a character that's just going with the flow, whatever the whim is regardless of the what comes.

Lawful characters are fun, but they're also very restrictive. They have a strict system and you really have to have it planned and figured out and stick to it if you want them to feel real.

[acrosome]

Jesus, what group of "friends" do you play with?

And, brother, you have never seen infighting and hate until you have played with some @$$hole who just keeps insisting that he is roleplaying his neutral evil character "properly". I.e., as a narcissistic psychopath.

[waldronate]

And, brother, you have never seen infighting and hate until you have played with some @$$hole who just keeps insisting that he is roleplaying his neutral evil character "properly". I.e., as a narcissistic psychopath.

Yes, I've been there for that. Also for the "these villagers irritated me, but I have some leftover bat guano and sulfur balls". And the fellow who spent most of his free time creating scrolls with Explosive Runes on them and posting said scrolls on the notice boards of towns that we went through. Plus the paladin who was so strongly racist that everything humanoid shape that wasn't human was marked for immediate death because there had never been a race that supported the true faith properly. And so many, many, painfully many, more...

[Azélor]

Is World of darkness the game you need to roll 10d10 juzt for a standard action? I remember the number of d10 to roll was ridiculous. Its fine if you have a whole set of the but most people have 1 or 2.

[Falconius]

Is World of darkness the game you need to roll 10d10 juzt for a standard action? I remember the number of d10 to roll was ridiculous. Its fine if you have a whole set of the but most people have 1 or 2.

WoD is a lot more fluid than that. It's a lot more focused on role playing. The rolls in combat and such are against a basic difficulty set by whatever the DM considers appropriate. The huge number of dice some into play when you have opposed roles (I may be getting confused) of super skilled characters. In other words basic skill is 1 die super is 10 (like he was level 20 for DnD in that skill) I don't think either system is that great at combat TBH. But WoD is much more about roleplaying the combat than it is determining hits and etc.

My favorite system was the West End Starwars D6 system, it was so much fun. Also ended up with a ton of dice for high skilled chars. Then Wizards took on the license and changed it to the garbage d20 system.

[acrosome]

Yeah, I just don't see how any "percentile" system- of which d20 is one- can possibly produce nonridiculous results, or a normal curve. That's another major reason for my GURPS fanboism- a simple normalized mechanic: roll 3d6 at or below a target number.

[Mouse]

I'm not really understanding the core of the discussion here, or why its such a hot subject, but it occurs to me that no one but an award-winning actor or actress can maintain a role that is 'other' than their own sweet self for very long. So isn't all this classification thing a bit OTT?

I mean, wouldn't it actually be more fun if the players were quite literally themselves? Us humans already have the full gamut of good and evil lurking inside us...

*Mouse looks around the room at all the horrified and shocked faces, and shrinks slowly backwards to the emergency exit, before making a mad dash out of the building for her underground hideout*

[Mark Oliva]

Mouse looks around the room at all the horrified and shocked faces, and shrinks slowly backwards to the emergency exit, before making a mad dash out of the building for her underground hideout*

Oh my! If you knew what dedicated RPG players are like, you'd know just what a good idea that escape is! Run, Mäuserl, run!

[Falconius]

I'm not really understanding the core of the discussion here, or why its such a hot subject, but it occurs to me that no one but an award-winning actor or actress can maintain a role that is 'other' than their own sweet self for very long. So isn't all this classification thing a bit OTT?

I mean, wouldn't it actually be more fun if the players were quite literally themselves? Us humans already have the full gamut of good and evil lurking inside us...

*Mouse looks around the room at all the horrified and shocked faces, and shrinks slowly backwards to the emergency exit, before making a mad dash out of the building for her underground hideout*

Roleplaying is acting, it's pretty much improv with more rules. But that is WAAYYYY too nerdy for gamers to address directly. Second of all, I don't think actors take a role as 'other' they simply play up those aspects of themselves in the character they're given, roleplayers do the exact same thing only with characters they create.